Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a ‘New World Order’

Relevance for the Present

A fact most uncongenial for many conservative-minded folk, especially in the USA, is that it was the USSR under Stalin that thwarted a world order, without which we would have very possibly been subjugated by a global central authority immediately following World War II. This matter of realpolitik stands alongside another factor in political realism: that New York and Washington have historically been the capitals of world revolution,[1] with the globalist elites pumping money into revolutionary movements whilst Stalin was busily eliminating international bolshevism as a Trotskyite menace, and reversing many aspects of the Bolshevik social experiments at home. This essay examines the machinations by which Washington sought to impose a post-war new world order, and Stalin’s response; events which have continuing major influences on both US and Russian policies.

Russia: The Perennial Disappointment

Russia has never fitted well into the plans of those seeking to impose a uniform system upon humanity. Russia has remained untamed in terms of the sophisticated Western liberals seeking to establish a unipolar global world, as were Afrikaners, Iraqis, Iranians, Serbs, et al. The difference is that Russians continue to constitute a significant opposition, which therefore requires subverting.

Russia’s economy was regarded as backward by the Western financiers and this is the reason why many not only welcomed the March and even the November 1917 Revolutions,[2] but also provided backing for the revolutionaries to overthrow the Czarist regime[3] as an anomaly in the world of “progress.”

Industrialists and financiers looked optimistically to a post-Czarist Russia whose regime was set to embark on industrialization, which implied the need for foreign capital and expertise, regardless of the revolutionary rhetoric about foreign capitalists. However, the self-described “foreign policy establishment”, the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), urged foreign investors to act quickly in Russia, as they perceived that the situation might soon change.

Peter Grosse,[4] writing in what amounts to a virtual “official history” of the CFR states of the Council’s first report on Soviet Russia:

Awkward in the records of the Inquiry[5] had been the absence of a single study or background paper on the subject of Bolshevism. Perhaps this was simply beyond the academic imagination of the times. Not until early 1923 could the Council summon the expertise to mobilize a systematic examination of the Bolshevik regime, finally entrenched after civil war in Russia. The impetus for this first study was Lenin’s New Economic Policy, which appeared to open the struggling Bolshevik economy to foreign investment. Half the Council’s study group were members drawn from firms that had done business in pre-revolutionary Russia, and the discussions about the Soviet future were intense. The concluding report dismissed ‘hysterical’ fears that the revolution would spill outside Russia’s borders into central Europe or, worse, that the heady new revolutionaries would ally with nationalistic Muslims in the Middle East to evict European imperialism. The Bolsheviks were on their way to ‘sanity and sound business practices,’ the Council study group concluded, but the welcome to foreign concessionaires would likely be short-lived. Thus, the Council experts recommended in March 1923 that American businessmen get into Russia while Lenin’s invitation held good, make money on their investments, and then get out as quickly as possible. A few heeded the advice; not for seven decades would a similar opportunity arise.[6]

Stalin, even at this embryonic stage of the Soviet regime, was the spoiler. While Trotsky wished to pursue foreign investment[7], as had been the case under Lenin’s New Economic Policy,[8] Stalin dealt some swift blows to the broadly termed opposition bloc led by Trotsky, and pursued a course not as amicable to foreign capital.

With the outbreak of war between Germany and the USSR, there was renewed hope for Russia being integrated into a post war new world order. Stalin relied on Western technological wherewithal for his war machine in fighting the Germans.[9] However Stalin was too hard-headed and authoritarian to be subordinate or even become a corporate equal partner in any post-war global re-organization envisaged by the USA.

United National Organization – Basis for World Parliament

Things seemed very jovial between “Uncle Joe”,[10] Roosevelt, and Churchill while the common enemy was being fought. However, Stalin had about as much esteem for his temporary partners in the West as he had had for his temporary partners Kamenev and Zinoviev while the two were jockeying for positions in the Bolshevik apparatus. Once Stalin’s position was secure on an individual level within the Soviet apparatus, the two scurvy old Bolsheviks ran out of options and were finally brought to account. Likewise, while practicalities did not grant Stalin similar opportunities for dealing with his former allies in the West, once he had secured the position this time of the entire USSR, he jettisoned those that – like the hapless Kamenev and Zinoviev – thought that they could manipulate Stalin and Russia to their own advantage. Having secured the appeasement of the Allies at Potsdam for the establishment of a new Russian Empire, despite the USA’s determination that the old European empires would not be part of the post-war world,[11] but rather the axis of world control would center around the Dollar Imperium, Stalin was not about to compromise his position as an equal, let alone a subordinate.

The first break in the wartime alliance came with America’s grand new design to establish the United Nations Organization (UNO) as a world parliament, as the focus of a “new world order” as President Wilson had sought with the League of Nations after World War I. Parliaments of the Western liberal democratic model in general are there for plutocratic manipulation; that is their purpose. Stalin, however, was not a parliamentarian, and could not be bought with promises of being a corporate partner in a Brave New World.

The American plan for the UNO called for power to be vested with the General Assembly and based around majority vote. The Soviet position was to make the Security Council the final arbiter of decisions with members having the right to veto. Andrei Gromyko sums up the situation:

The US position in fact allowed the UN to be turned into an instrument for imposing the will of one group of states upon another, above all the Soviet Union as the sole socialist member of the Council.[12]

Despite long standing conservative conspiracy theories regarding the UNO being a Soviet plot to create a communist controlled World State,[13] it was the USSR that rendered the UNO redundant as a method of imposing a new world order, de facto if not de jure, a situation that continues to the present time, thanks to the Soviet insistence on national – or imperial – sovereignty for itself and its power bloc.

Baruch Plan to ‘Internationalize’ Atomic Energy

The second pillar for the creation of a post-war new world order rested on the supposed “internationalization” of the awesome power of atomic energy. Just like the democratic façade of the American plan for a General Assembly world parliament, this “internationalization’ was perceived by the USSR as really meaning US control.

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • geoffreyhart

    To assert that Stalin thwarted a global NWO is to show total ignorance of the financing of the Soviet Union. In truth, the very same financiers funded the “revolution of 1917”, the Mao revolution of the 1945-47, and the build-up of Communist China. The Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy. Just as WALL STREET financed Hitler, so too it financed Stalin and his successors. Why you ask? The answer should be apparent based on the world today: To create a global NWO. The Hegelian dialectic, the controlled opposition, the continual threats of war, the strengthening of totalitarian socialist economies, the oligarchical globalists who control most of the worlds central banks, these are forces of history. Read Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and the Anglo-American Establishment for more information. Also check out the RED SYMPHONY FOR INSIGHT INTO THE THE TRUE POWER OF BANKERS.

  • Dr K R Bolton

    If Mr Hart had read what I’ve written for FPJ he would know that I understand dialectical strategies, having written the article on ‘socialism, revolution and capitalist dialectics’, that I know who backed the Maoist takeover – which Stalin tried to thwart – and who funded the Bolsheviks.

    As I state in the article on the Cold War, it will be unpalatable to many that Stalin scotched the US effort to establish a new world order via the UNO and the Baruch Plan, but the writer does not address any of the material in the essay. Creating a bogus enemy out of the USSR by using Stalin in order to pursue a dialectical strategy makes no sense on any level. The best opportunity for a world state via the UNO came immediately after WWII, and Stalin scotched it. If Stalin had played along who else would have been able to resist the type of world authority that was being proposed by the USA? The globalist agenda would have been completed decades ago.

    Quigley does not say that the plutocrats backed the USSR; on the contrary he states that they lost control from Stalin onwards, and I cite Quigley in my essay. Of his 1200 page magnum opus ‘Tragedy and hope’, only several dozen pages refer to the international bankers, but certain conspiracy theorists cite him selectively.

    Quigley erred gravely in identifying the globalist power structure as “Anglophile.” This has given rise to all types of nonsense about the British Monarchy, sometimes with extraterrestrial reptiles being thrown in for good measure. The CFR and the Rhodes group parted ways at the earliest stages, as Grosse states in his CFR history, “Continuing the Inquiry.”

    Grosse’s semi-official CFR history, quoted extensively in my essay, states that the USSR soon became problematic. Quigley states the same, and Armand Hammer alludes to such matters from personal experience in his autobiography. There is no reason to think that Grosse is providing misdirection on this or anything else. He states that the CFR was pro-Bolshevik, but rightly predicted that the USSR would soon take an unpalatable direction.

    “Red Symphony” , supposedly the Stalinist interrogation of Trotskyite Christian Rakovsky, is interesting but not authentic. It supposedly quotes Rakovsky in reference to Trotsky’s father in law being the banker Zhivitovsky. The alleged quote is a verbatim cut-and-paste job from the 1919 US Military Intelligence Report entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism” which was in reality written by the Czarist emigre Boris Brasol. Zhivitovsky was Trotsky’s uncle, and was indeed involved in funding the Bolsheviks.

    The Trotsky – Stalin split has been of enduring importance in understanding post war policy to the present, as I attempted to show. It also epxlains alot about the ideological impetus for Cold War US policy, and the new Cold War emerging as the result yet again of Russian self-assertion. More power to them.

    • If Mr Hart had read what I’ve written for FPJ he would know that I understand dialectical strategies…

      That was my thought exactly. Thanks for commenting.

  • Yuri Nikolaev

    This is good if Americans think, read and understand this things. But I saw much more comments for translations of this article on russian site…

    • Dr K R Bolton

      Mr Nikolaev
      What Russian site? Would of course be interested to know.
      K R Bolton

  • John Puppet

    To: Dr K R Bolton
    Oh, some random Russian propaganda site.

    • BFGear

      Of course, Mr. Puppet John, this is exactly the propaganda site, the Western propaganda, as this the site with translations on non Russian articles, from the whole World. Usually we (Russians) read it just for LOLS, as no one “compos mentis” considers this major mass of this bletcherous, incompetent scribble as thomthing worthy…
      But!.. From time to time…
      Thank you, thank you so much, Dr. K R Bolton, for brilliant analytic material!!!

    • Jei

      Agree with John Puppet – 100% sure that this is Russian propaganda.

  • Thanks for the truth.
    From Russia with love.

  • Rosco

    To Dr. K R Bolton, apologise’ if this comment is somewhat late. I was curious about the situation of Europe during these times. Do you think Europes long history of internal conflict and multitude of ethnicity will prevent it from ever returning to the world stage as a unified dominant global power to rival the likes of the U.S and Russia?

    • Dr K R Bolton

      The artifical nation-state constructs are engendering conflict, and should be broken down into organic entities.Paradoxical as it might seem, this might lessen division, as hatreds are caused when people are forced together rather than uniting as the result of a dialectical historical process. One prime example would be the dissolution of Belgium in favour of the Walloon and Flemish nations, as per the recent election victory of Flemish separatists.

      Unity is unfortunately achieved usually by outside pressures – an outer enemy . America I think will sink as a power through internal flaws. Other powers will emerge and China and Russia i think will become enemies once more, with emerging conflicts in Asia, the issue of water resources coming to the fore. From such crises both new dangers and new opportunities emerge. I would personally opt for an alignment with Russia, my own country, New Zealand, being obsessed with China which i think will cause us great problems in the near future. My recent articles on geopolitical problems appearing in World Affairs, India Quarterly and the Journal for Social, Political and Economic Studies might be of interest in regard to some of these questions.

      As America and the globalist poison continue to spread there is hope of a reaction, a resurgence of faith in Europe as a response to the alienation and superficiality caused by globalisation. Perhaps resurgent forces in Europe will emerge in the midst of spiritual, cultural, social, economic and political crises? I think Spengler can be profitably read for many insights.

  • punjab

    thats silly you shouldn’t talk crap about a kool bloke

  • punjab

    you should all bow down ryan will be in power soon enough to destroy you all

  • ki

    if you go back to the Khammurabbic Consitution of 2600BC and notice the emergence of the babylonian state; you will notice the ‘Satan’ of the prophets, whom of course were all murdered for the reason of someones empire. His name is there and he would be king; and we would note the war against monarchies and religions today; esp judaism and christianity as they once and no longer are. it is well known that the roman church, the islamic mosque, and the jewish rabbinacy are a singular religious fraud. its in reality the babylonian church of satan. marduke was proclaimed ruler of the world by An and Enlil and Khammurabbi was apointed as the human face in the geopolitic. But his father did not elect him however.

    Thats why Ea, soon, by 1600BC went on his own and elected a priestly government via mosis. From 600BC and on the infiltration of the jewish kingship and jewish priesthood were complete. the last kings of israel were babylonian, equally the priesthood. there is no valid jewish priesthood. there are no legal rabbis. that lays the foundation to est that the roman church is a fraud, as paul whom was saul did note of its precedence of origin; via the false jewish church; they whom call themselves jews but are not. in those days power was determined via religion up until modern time. and it continues.

    somewhere near 600bc marduke, in the absence of his fathers, An, Enlil, Ea went his own way. he had clear intention to prove men as unworthy self government if under test. unfort his contestation did not consider a resistant minority of many millions. many believe and have faith in the promise of the kingdom the lord of israel predicated upon and that he himself would ensure.

    this desire for power, on the part of marduke pushes the panorama of history. the history is but a plot. 6000 nuclear missiles cannot be wrong. 5000 f35 fighters produced under a viel of cold war illusion, a lie covering a truth.

    who is coming circa 2012 dec 25 to avenge the murder of his people and the plan of his rebellious son to murder off the entirety of christians and jews with the islamic religion, created for that purpose. under the weight of getting along with islam, they would justify the removal of judaism and christianity and docile us into believing in a fictious need for a religious commonality.

    keep careful view upon the lords prayer, i pray each day for the coming of a kingdom, i dont pray for the coming of the un. and neither does that charter ever declare the premise of that kingdom. and it equates that false islam dares stand brother to judah and israel and christ. never. a religion that will not accept the supremacy of the lord of israel, ea, whose name is jesus christ equally in the encryption of the faith, is a satanic instrument in fact. there is no mohammed and there is no allah . its a dogma.

    the lord of abraham, whose name is Ea will determined who mohammed will be or who he wont be. this is his earth. and no UN will ever have the audacity to stand a halfbred freak born against natural order as god properly meant it, to ever declare himself equal. he is unworthy even to offer sacrifice. and if you cannot sacrifice you cannot be a priest. and as Daniel attests beauty defines faith and faith beauty.

    and No freak against nature, like Obama will ever continue his damned riegn as a puppet of babylon.

    Marduke will not keep this earth. The testimony of his Father is before us. and he has never been known to fail.


  • :-` I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information ;~-

  • farout

    The sheep will always deny the truth simply b/c they were and still are being brainwashed by the mainsleaze media and that they will always be subservient to the whims of the Zionists masters and owners..

  • jim

    Crazt conspiracy theory always based on some reality. Soros controls the world? Well why he is a minnow compared to non jewish greats such as buffet and gates. the richest jew in the world (sheldon) doesnt even get into to the top 20 richest people in the world. What a stupid article. I wish jews did rule the world then we could get rid of those fakestinians and tell that muppet kerry to bog off back to the USA

    • What a stupid comment. The article doesn’t say Soros “controls the world”, must less that Jews do. The only mention of Jews, in fact, is in the comments. I can only guess that you based your comment on your impression of the article based on on others’ comments instead of actually reading the article for yourself.

      • jim

        Mate just check out your final paragraph conclusion:

        ” run by regimes that have been installed by those noble NGO’s of the Soros network etc. The CFR therefore recommends that more should be done to “accelerate the integration of those states into the West.” [46] The CFR recommends that US Congress interfere directly in the Russian political process by funding opposition movements in Russia under the façade of strengthening democracy, by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[47] Of note is Mark F Brzezinski as one of the authors, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served under Carter. Antonia W Bouis is cited as founding executive director of the Soros Foundations (1987-92). James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.

        What can be expected under Obama in regard to Russia? Despite the electoral rhetoric Obama has pursued policies in the same direction as prior administrations. Mark Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy adviser during the presidential campaign.[48] Of particular significance is that among Obama’s primary backers is George Soros, which makes anything other than a subversive and belligerent attitude towards Russia unlikely”

        If that does not read like the protocols of zion I dont know what does. Absolutely loopy! Enjoy the conspiracy theorys though.

  • Ринат Чернов

    Russians don’t heed to the nonsense rhetoric coming from the West.
    We don’t buy your silly talk about “democracy”, “free speech”, peace on earth etc, because we see right through it.
    We know
    1) there is not democracy or free speech in the West, unless you agree with the official totalitarian liberalist logic
    2) we base our world view on our natural instincts, intuition, which tells us you are the enemy and come to kill us and take over our country, because that is what was attempted by YOU and happened after the collapse of USSR
    3) jews are behind all revolutions and “human” rights groups in Russia and around the world – and it can’t be good
    4) you are no longer even hiding your duplicitous hypocrisy – by calling the Ukrainian junta “legitimate” and based on international law when in fact the glaring facts say otherwise, and at the same time your leaders tell us that a referendum in Crimea to join Russia is illegitimate and is in violation of all kinds of laws. You are really that dumb to think that we are as dumb as you are?

    • 1autumn

      Pray for the USA please. We need to be on a different path.

  • Pingback: Russia and the Rise of a New Era | Kerry Bolton()